Reflection on Judges 19: The Levite’s concubine and her relevance for today

Bible Passage: Judges 19[1]

1. In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite, residing in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, took to himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But his concubine became angry with him, and she went away from him to her father's house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there some four months. 3 Then her husband set out after her, to speak tenderly to her and bring her back. He had with him his servant and a couple of donkeys. When he reached her father's house, the girl's father saw him and came with joy to meet him. 4 His father-in-law, the girl's father, made him stay, and he remained with him three days; so they ate and drank, and he stayed there. 5 on the fourth day they got up early in the morning, and he prepared to go; but the girl's father said to his son-in-law, "Fortify yourself with a bit of food, and after that you may go." 6 So the two men sat and ate and drank together; and the girl's father said to the man, "Why not spend the night and enjoy yourself?" 7 When the man got up to go, his father-in-law kept urging him until he spent the night there again. 8 On the fifth day he got up early in the morning to leave; and the girl's father said, "Fortify yourself." So they lingered until the day declined, and the two of them ate and drank. 9 When the man with his concubine and his servant got up to leave, his father-in-law, the girl's father, said to him, "Look, the day has worn on until it is almost evening. Spend the night. See, the day has drawn to a close. Spend the night here and enjoy yourself. Tomorrow you can get up early in the morning for your journey, and go home." 10 But the man would not spend the night; he got up and departed, and arrived opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). He had with him a couple of saddled donkeys, and his concubine was with him. 11 When they were near Jebus, the day was far spent, and the servant said to his master, "Come now, let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites, and spend the night in it." 12 but his master said to him, "We will not turn aside into a city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel; but we will continue on to Gibeah." 13 Then he said to his servant, "Come, let us try to reach one of these places, and spend the night at Gibeah or at Ramah." 14 So they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down on them near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin. 15 They turned aside there, to go in and spend the night at Gibeah. He went in and sat down in the open square of the city, but no one took them in to spend the night. 16 Then at evening there was an old man coming from his work in the field. The man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was residing in Gibeah. (The people of the place were Benjaminites.) 17 When the old man looked up and saw the wayfarer in the open square of the city, he said, "Where are you going and where do you come from?" 18 He answered him, "We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, from which I come. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; and I am going to my home. Nobody has offered to take me in. 19 We your servants have straw and fodder for our donkeys, with bread and wine for me and the woman and the young man along with us. We need nothing more." 20 The old man said, "Peace be to you. I will care for all your wants; only do not spend the night in the square." 21 So he brought him into his house, and fed the donkeys; they washed their feet, and ate and drank.22 While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, "Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him." 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. 24 Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing." 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26 As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, until it was light.27 In the morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 "Get up," he said to her, "we are going." But there was no answer. Then he put her on the donkey; and the man set out for his home. 29 When he had entered his house, he took a knife, and grasping his concubine he cut her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. 30 Then he commanded the men whom he sent, saying, "Thus shall you say to all the Israelites, 'Has such a thing ever happened since the day that the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt until this day? Consider it, take counsel, and speak out.'"

Introduction

One of the important passages in the bible for me is this very chapter of the judges 19. The first time read it in a liberative perspective, it really struck me hard. How can a passage of intense brutality and unimaginable violence be a part of God’s holy word? This opened my eyes and made me understand that the text needs to be seen in the lens of suspicion. Hence I thought that it would be appropriate for me to do a study on this passage for this assignment. The study however convinced me to speak for the rights of women and encouraged me to stand up for women where and when ever necessary especially at the time when the women are under such intolerable pain of patriarchal domination.

Reflection

This story of the gang rape and mutilation of a Levite's concubine wife in Judges 19 is a difficult text to read; it is indeed a "text of terror," as Phyllis Trible has argued. This text of terror constitutes for some the model narrative for elucidating oppression and violence perpetrated against women and their victimization. Texts both reflect and critique everyday life. Texts of terror contain vivid and mundane images of women's oppression and brutality. They reflect and critique our ignorance, complicity, and culpability in the brutality and victimization of women and others. We resist the idea that the perpetrators of heinous acts could be one of us, anyone like us, or anyone familiar to us.

This story of the unnamed woman is one of the most disturbing texts in the Hebrew Bible. The woman, who is from Bethlehem but lives with a Levite in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Jerusalem, is referred to in Hebrew as the ‘pilegesh’ of the Levite. The precise nature of the relationship between a man and his ‘pilegesh’ is not always clear from the biblical texts, however, and scholars have sometimes disagreed about the term’s meaning. It is usually translated into English as “concubine” and understood to refer to a wife or sexual partner of secondary status. Although certain men in the Hebrew Bible have both wives and concubines, no wives or additional concubines are referred to in Judges 19. The Levite is referred to as the “husband” of the woman (19:3; 20:4) and the “son-in-law” of the woman’s father (19:5), who in turn is referred to as the Levite’s “father-in-law” (19:4, 7, 9). The uncertain nature of the differences between a wife and a concubine reveals the complexities involved in understanding notions of kinship and marriage presupposed by biblical narratives.

The Hebrew text states that the woman “prostituted herself against” the Levite (19:2). Thus, it has often been assumed that she was sexually unfaithful to him. Certain Greek translations, however, state that she “became angry” with him. The latter interpretation is accepted by a number of commentators and modern English translations, including the NRSV, since the woman goes to her father’s house rather than the house of a male lover. It is also possible that the woman’s “prostitution” does not refer to literal sexual infidelity but is a sort of metaphor for the fact that she leaves her husband. The act of leaving one’s husband is quite unusual in the Hebrew Bible, and the harsh language used to describe, it could result from the fact that it was viewed in a very negative light.

Four months after the woman returns to Bethlehem, the Levite goes after her. Although the Hebrew text states that he wishes to “speak to her heart” (19:3; NRSV, “speak tenderly to her”), no discussion between the Levite and the woman is recounted. Indeed, the text never records any of the woman’s words. The woman’s father acts as if he is glad to see the Levite, but for several days he delays the return of the Levite and the woman to Ephraim. Because of this delay the travellers finally set out at a late hour and, due to the unwillingness of the Levite to spend the night in a city of “foreigners” (19:12), arrive at the Benjaminite city of Gibeah after the sun has gone down.

Although hospitality to strangers was an important custom in the ancient world, the travellers initially have a difficult time finding a place to spend the night. They are finally offered hospitality by an old man who, like the Levite, is from Ephraim. While the travellers are eating, the house is surrounded by men of the city who, according to the Hebrew text, wish “to know” the Levite (19:22). “To know” is probably a euphemism for sexual intercourse here, as it is in other biblical texts and as the NRSV translates it. The Ephraimite host attempts to dissuade the men of the city from raping his male guest, offering to them his own daughter and the Levite’s concubine in place of the Levite.

Several elements in this part of the story, including the offer of two women as objects of rape in the place of a male object, are very similar to elements of the story of Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:1–8). Apparently the sexual violation of women was considered less shameful than that of men, at least in the eyes of other men. Such an attitude reflects both the social subordination of women and the fact that homosexual rape was viewed as a particularly severe attack on male honour.

When the men of Gibeah refuse to accept the two women, one of the men inside the house throws the concubine outside. Interpreters generally agree that it is the Levite who throws her to the crowd, though the text only states ambiguously that “the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them” (Judges 19:25) without noting specifically which man is meant. The woman is then raped by the men of Gibeah throughout the night. They do not kill her, however, for in the morning she returns to the house from which she was thrown and collapses at the door. The Levite finds her there when he rises to leave and orders her to get up. When she does not respond, for she apparently is near death, he places her on the back of his donkey and returns to Ephraim.

The text does not tell us exactly when or how the woman dies. The Levite, upon his arrival in Ephraim, cuts the woman’s body into twelve pieces and sends these pieces throughout the land. The horror of the tale represents extreme disorder, to be rectified only by the establishment of monarchic rule. The fate of the concubine is particularly gruesome, however, and the story has appropriately been called a “text of terror” by Phyllis a feminist commentator.

The text is fraught with and reeks of images and language of familiarity. Familiarity can and often does render risk and danger invisible. Normally expected behaviour, particularly normalcy practiced by authoritative or dominant persons or institutions, can camouflage or render invisible oppression and violence. In contexts of perceived familiarity and/or normalcy, oppression and brutality against women and children can more easily occur with little or no interference. We warn our children, and rightly so, to beware of strangers. But traffickers in human flesh are often not strangers. Every year thousands of women and children, drawn from every corner of the world, are recruited or drafted into modern-day sex slavery in our country

If, for many women and men, the grace of God cannot be found in the story, perhaps it can be found in the act of telling and retelling of the concubine's story. The retelling of her story brings her terror into the light of day so that her victimization can confront and challenge us. Her story foregrounds how familiarity and/or proximity have been and are used as a pretext and context for the oppression, silencing, trafficking, sexual abuse, and murder of women, children, and other vulnerable members of our society and world. The language and images of the concubine's story point to the similarities between her story and the stories of modem-day victims of sex trafficking. By telling her story and the stories of our contemporary sisters and brothers, we bring them out of the darkness exposing our will-full ignorance, culpability, complicity, and responsibility.

This being the context of the passage chosen for how is it to be read for today? Are we also supposed to do as it is written in the “Word of God” as we consider all that is written in this “Holy Book” as words of God, how are we responding to this text that is so brutal, so exploitative, so embarrassing and so inhumane? Are we commanded to rape and brutally murder women and go sinless? What can we do to prevent the objectification and victimization of women and children? What can we do to help stop the terrors that loiter in the night?

Have we not read the various rapes? The rapes which have been hitting headlines of every news paper, has become so common that everyday there is atleast three or four rape cases been reported. Where is our society heading? Is there no solution for this incomparable imposed misery on women?

We can read the concubine's story as if it were our story, our daughter or son's story, and sister or brother's story. We can read the story through the eyes of the guilty and complicit men in the story, asking ourselves how we are guilty of or complicit in the objectification of women, men and children in the church, in our homes, in our communities, in the larger society, and in the world. We can read and teach her story in our homes. We can educate ourselves, our families and our children about sex trafficking. We can stop assuming that every woman and girl on a "street comer" wants to be there and that every run away deserves what waits for her on the street.

In order to release the captives and set free the oppressed, we have to open our eyes and shine a light on the terrors in the night. The terror that these victims experience is unimaginable. Yet, modem-day sex trafficking is not an imaginary tale. It may be happening in our neighbourhood or right at the coffee shop in our area or even in the house next door, or in our own back yard. All we can do is to stand strong for this cause, for this matter any woman who is being harassed needs to be spoken for, irrespective of who she is, for it is this woman today and tomorrow it could be one of our own family members who would be facing the same danger. May God strengthen us, as we strive to help the victims of such atrocities and discrimination in our own life situations. Amen

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NRSV

Exum, J. Cheryl. Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub) versions of Biblical Narratives. Sheffield, England: 1993.

Meyers, Carol, General Editor. Women in Scripture. New York: 2000.

Stone, Ken. “Gender and Homosexuality in Judges 19: Subject-Honor, Object-Shame?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament67 (1995): 87–107.

Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Philadelphia: 1984.

Yee, Gale A. “Ideological Criticism: Judges 17–21 and the Dismembered Body.” In Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, edited by Gale Yee, 146–170. Minneapolis: 1995.

[1] NRSV

PSALM 93

Old Testament 18a: Selected Texts: Psalms in Hebrew

Psalm 93

******************************************************************************

Introduction

This Psalm in a hymn to Yahweh the sovereign, as it can be seen in from the opening exclamation, Yahweh malak, “Yahweh is king” this is a prominent type of composition which many scholars connect it to the pre-exilic Jerusalem liturgy. This psalm is strategically placed in the Psalter, and it seems to be a “bridge psalm” between Psalms 90–92 and 94.[1] “Being situated between Psalms 92 and 94, where both psalms anticipate the destruction of the enemies, Psalm 93 proclaims Yahweh’s superiority over all chaos powers.”[2] Interestingly, the Mishnah agrees with the LXX that Psalm 93 was to be sung for the sixth day of the week.[3] Also, in terms of introduction, Briggs sees Psalm 93 being “dependent” on Isaiah 2, but this is unconvincing.[4]

However, Claus Westermann believes that Psalm 93 is totally disconnected from its context. He writes: “Ps 93 is already different from all others (enthronement psalms) in that the imperative (or jussive) call to praise is totally missing.”[5] But it seems abundantly clear that these psalms do, in fact, form a unit within the Psalter as a hole. They are strategically placed and obviously extolling the Kingship of Yahweh alone. We could summarise this Psalm as, His [Yahweh’s] Majesty and His Glory are seen, not only in controlling the powers of nature, and whatsoever exalts and opposes itself against Him, but in the faithfulness of His word, and in the holiness of His house.

 Translation:

יְהוָה מָלָךְ גֵּאוּת לָבֵשׁ לָבֵשׁ יְהוָה עֹז הִתְאַזָּר אַף־תִּכּוֹן תֵּבֵל בַּל־תִּמּוֹט

Yahweh is king, He is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed, He is girded with strength. The world stands firm; it cannot be shaken.

מָלָךְ Hiphil Perfect 3rd person Masculine                                 

לָבֵשׁ  Pual Perfect 3^rd Masculine Singular                                         

הִתְאַזָּר  Hithpael Perfect 3^rd Person Masculine Singular                         

אַף־תִּכּוֹן  Niphil Imperfect 3^rd Person Feminine Singular + Particle Conjunction   

בַּל־תִּמּוֹט  Niphal Imperfect 3^rd Person Feminine Singular

נָכוֹן כִּסְאֲךָ מֵאָז מֵעוֹלָם אָתָּה

Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.

נָכוֹן   Niphal Participle Masculine Absolute

נָשְׂאוּ נְהָרוֹת יְהוָה נָשְׂאוּ נְהָרוֹת קוֹלָם יִשְׂאוּ נְהָרוֹת דָּכְיָם

The floods have lifted up, O LORD, The floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their pounding waves.

נָשְׂאוּ  Qal Perfect 3^rd  Person Common Plural

יִשְׂאוּ  Qal Imperfect 3^rd Person Masculine Plural

מִקֹּלוֹת מַיִם רַבִּים אַדִּירִים מִשְׁבְּרֵי־יָם אַדִּיר בַּמָּרוֹם יְהוָה

More than the sounds of mighty waters, than the mighty breakers of the sea, The LORD on high is mighty.

מִקֹּלוֹת  Participle Preposition + Noun Common Plural Construct

  עֵדֹתֶיךָ נֶאֶמְנוּ מְאֹד לְבֵיתְךָ נַאֲוָה־קֹדֶשׁ יְהוָה לְאֹרֶךְ יָמִים

Your testimonies are very sure; Holiness befits your house, O LORD, forever.

נֶאֶמְנוּ  Niphal Perfect 3^rd Person Common Plural

Form

The Psalms 47; 93; 96:10-13; 97; 99, form the pattern of the enthronement psalms of YHWH. These psalms often begin with the words מלך יהוה, “Yahweh has become king” and this psalm also starts with the opening with the phrase “YHWH has become king”  it contains a call to rejoice, and asking all to rejoice as THE LORD is enthroned as king. We see that there are brief references to Yahweh’s deeds, depicted as just now taking place. It gives descriptions of what his reign will mean to Israel and the world. And presents an idea that, a new world kingdom is coming.

Though one may conclude with Human, it seems more profitable to say that the theological meaning begins with Psalm 93 and includes Psalm 94.[6] Psalm 93, specifically, is the first of eight psalms within this community. It is here that this cluster of psalms extolling the glorious sovereignty of Yahweh takes shape within the book of Psalms as a whole. These psalms “affirm YHWH’s kingship, sovereignty, and everlasting presence.”[7] The royal reign of Yahweh is “the actual subject of the glorification and praise.”[8] Briggs takes this thought and appends one further remark by saying that these were songs of praise celebrating the advent of Yahweh for the purpose of judgment.[9] This, of course, makes sense when one considers the awesome holiness and impeccable righteousness of this sovereign King.

Sitz im Leben

These psalms were used as part of Israel’s worship, likely including an enthronement festival in which, Yahweh is glorified as king. These psalms were given a prophetic, eschatological, reinterpretation in their final stages. It was in the atmosphere of common worship that the glory of The Lord was evoked and revoked. This psalm is a song of praise of YHWH’s kingship, and it is being made clear through the acclamation of the king in the first verse denoting that ‘YHWH is become king’, which in turn points out to the acclamation on the occasion of the enthronement of the earthly king.

In this respect we see that this psalm is closely related to Psalm 47, 97, 99 etc. the enthronement of YHWH presumably constituted one of the rites of the covenant festival which was celebrated in autumn at the New Year and lasted several days. The ritual of enthronement ceremony has its origin not in Israel but in Mesopotamia. The mention of the creation in this connection can probably likewise be traced back to the Babylonian source of the Enthronement festival, where the celebration of the world’s new year included the enthronement of god Marduk as a victory over the powers of chaos at the creation of the world.

We still can see from the affinity of the psalm with documents from Ugarit, how the ideas that furnish the material for the psalm had reached Canaan and Israel at a comparatively early date. Taking everything into consideration the psalm with its hymnic style exhibits those typical features which are the hallmark of the Old Testament faith. The hope of the Kingdom of God, the coming of which is linked up with the enthronement of YHWH, and the emphatic linking of creation and eschatology within the idea of the eternal reign of God, have sprung from Old Testament soil and are the ripe fruit of its belief in God.

The Enthronement Festival

            The kingship psalms extol the magnificent and splendid grandeur of the Most High King, Yahweh Himself. A theory regarding their origin has been proposed by fairly recent scholarship as being related to an “Enthronement Festival.” This enthronement Festival originates not from the Hebrew Scriptures, but from other ANE cultures and religions. For example, there is a tablet from Ugarit which proves to be important in this regard.[10] This text shows that there was an annual festival hailing Baal’s enthronement as King. Fisher and Knutson supply this insight when they write “[this Ugaritic text] is important for Biblical studies because Enthronement hymns have sometimes been denied their cultic setting, and anyone who is interested in the cultic setting should look to the Baal cult for comparative material.”[11] Mowinckel purports a theory and, consequently, the whole kingship motif, in light of examples from the ANE, especially from Babylon. Mowinckel supports this festival when he proposes that these psalms were originally meant for the Enthronement Festival.

            Sigmund Mowinckel conjectured a theory from the ancient cultures where the people enthroned their deity—often on New Year’s Day. Because of these royal psalms (or as Mowinckel would phrase it, “enthronement psalms”), Mowinckel sees the same festival being practiced by the Israelites and that this is the immediate background of these psalms where Yahweh is declared to be (or “become”) king. Yet, Mowinckel’s hypothesis that “Yahweh was declared to have become king” is the proper translation because of other cultures in the ANE and the way that they worshipped their deities on the New Year festival presupposes if one is consistent with other ANE Enthronement Festivals that the deity actually loses for a period of time. Schmidt adheres to this view by asserting that the God of Israel like all other vegetation deities seems to be defeated and his supremacy in the natural rhythm of the season, and declares that ‘This is a myth similar to that of the periodic descent of the gods to the underworld and their resurrection. Yet, the unambiguous chorus of the kingship psalms refutes any notion that Yahweh has failed or has had any period of defeat whatsoever. Therefore, this hypothesis is totally speculative and must be discarded.

            One has to wonder if these psalms were, in fact, integral to the New Year Feast why there is such a lack of evidence. For, “if this feast was particularly concerned with the Kingship of Jehovah, then we should surely expect to find that they had an important, if not a pre-eminent place in the liturgy of Rosh haShanah.”[12] To the present, no such evidence exists.

Contrariwise, rather than attempting to reconstruct a purely hypothetical festival which has no biblical support, it is best to maintain the objective truth that the kingship psalms focus on the “immovable mountain that towers above all theology,” namely, the sovereign reign of God.23 These psalms do speak of the absolute and exclusive reign of God representing his undisputed and unrivaled right to govern over all that he has created.

Interpretation

          V1-2 Scripture repeatedly affirms that Yahweh has always existed and is therefore proper to suggest that the first phrase of this psalm encompasses the biblical truth that Yahweh is indeed enthroned on high! It is clear that verse 1 consists of a tricolon.[13] each of the three cola is balanced beautifully. The words compose a 4:4:3 patterns:יְהוָה מָלָךְ גֵּאוּת לָבֵשׁ לָבֵשׁ יְהוָה עֹז הִתְאַזָּר אַף־תִּכּוֹן תֵּבֵל בַּל־תִּמּוֹט Perhaps the atypical pattern on the final cola is leading into verse 2 which is a bicolon and the first cola in verse 2 is composed of three words.

The first phrase יְהוָה מָלָךְ has been subject to overwhelming study and critique.[14] Simply put, the first word is the noun יְהוָה  and the second word is the verb מָלָך Though the word order is not as regular in Hebrew poetry as it is in Hebrew narrative, it is significant that the psalm begins with the covenant name of Yahweh. The reason for this irregular syntax is to show the supremacy of Israel’s God against other gods or powers. The verb מָלָך is a Qal perfect third masculine singular from מָלָך.

The interpretive question is whether the Qal verb is to be translated as a characteristic present (“reigns”), as an inceptive/ingressive (“has begun to reign”), or even expressing continuous action (“is reigning”). Of course the exegesis must be based upon context and, of course, the context of the royal psalms and of Psalm 93 points to the eternal sovereignty of God. Obviously, if the English rendered it in the past, “Yahweh reigned,” that would connote that Yahweh has ceased reigning and is, thus, impotent as the Sovereign King. However, contextually this is not a viable solution.

If someone were to assert that this simply means “Yahweh is King,” then the question arises as to why the psalmist did not write the noun ‘Melek’, instead of the verb ‘Malak’ He sees the “older translation” of “the LORD reigns” as misleading. Briggs concurs with Mowinckel for he believes that the opening phrase is “not the assertion of His everlasting royal prerogative, but the joyous celebration of the fact that He has now shown Himself to be king by a royal advent, taking His place on His throne to govern the world Himself, and no longer through inefficient or wicked servants.

Contrary to Mowinckel and a host of others who see the opening phrase, יְהוָה מָלָךְ as referring to a “coronation-type ceremony,” Kraus pulls the rug out from underneath Mowinckel’s theory when he also adds that “even the translation of יְהוָה מָלָך in the sense of an enthronement formula is questioned . . . many arguments support the idea that this call at the beginning of the psalm should be rendered ‘Yahweh is King.’ Therefore, it seems most appropriate to translate this phrase as “Yahweh reigns” as opposed to “Yahweh has begun to reign” for the following four reasons:

First, although the verbal statement מָלָך יְהוָה can refer to a lively and stirring event as in the act of enthroning a person23—such as may be found in 1 Kings 1:11 when Adonijah “becomes king” (WhY"ånIdoa] %l:ßm'). And though Isaiah 52:7 ultimately points to that Messianic age when the Messiah will reign from Zion and to the declaration that God has begun to reign `%yIh")l{a/ %l:ïm' !AYàcil. rmEïao, it must be stated that the grammar and syntax do not require this kind of interpretation.[15] In short, the meaning of the perfect verb (%l'm)' with Yahweh as subject is the same as the normal meaning, generally circumscribed by “to be king, become king, rule as king, reign,” without any partial aspect (e.g., “to become”) exhibiting any discernible priority or becoming fixed in any specific contexts. Therefore, this expression should not be seen as an “enthronement cry” (cf. Mowinckel) but rather like the frequently cited parallels from the Babylonian Marduk rituals as a “cry of acclamation or proclamation.” Therefore, the psalmist is acclaiming Yahweh’s reign as already existing (and continuing to exist forevermore).

Second, the word order of %l'm ' hwh"åy> seems to indicate a statement of “condition.”  It is Yahweh who is emphasized as being the King (fronted for emphasis). In other words, the psalmist appears to stress that Yahweh, and no other deity, exercises kingship.  As Seybold clarifies: “The x-qatal formulation (inverted verbal clause or compound nominal clause) accentuates x, i.e. ‘Yahweh, which—especially at the beginning of a psalm—generates strong emphasis. It is Yahweh who . . .; Yahweh—He . . .’” This is contrary to Kidner who asserts that this is an announcement rather than a timeless statement. Then he quickly glosses over the issue by saying: “but in the Psalms the word-order is reversed.”^[16] Therefore, it is clear that this statement is not “a cry announcing the periodic reinstatement of Yahweh as king but a cultic-kerygmatic proclamation of the eternal kingship of Yahweh!” Third, verse 2 debunks the notion that verse 1 could even hint at the reality of Yahweh ever not reigning as it clearly says, “Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.” God was never off the throne and so he could not ever be “enthroned.”[17]

In short, Yahweh has always existed. He has always been the King. He has always been on the Sovereign throne. The point is that the throne and nature of Yahweh are not incipient in time they are timelessly eternal! If there is one thing this verse points to, it is the theme of Yahweh’s permanence as King! In no way can this be “copied” from the Baal texts for they are decisively different. Baal became a king. Yahweh has always existed as the King. Yahweh needs no one to copy. He needs no attributes from another god or deity. Yahweh surely does not need to usurp Baal’s functions in any way. As Psalm 95:3 confirms: “For the LORD is a great God And a great King above all gods.”

V3 is a tricolon where each colon is very similar in nature. Obviously, as all commentators agree, verse 3 employs the Hebrew poetic feature of repetition for added emphasis.98 It is, though, the nature of—or the purpose of—that emphasis which is at question. Regardless, the parallel structure in verse 3 is unmistakable. It is an A+B+C//A+B+D//A+B+E pattern:[18]  נָשְׂאוּ נְהָרוֹת יְהוָה נָשְׂאוּ נְהָרוֹת קוֹלָם יִשְׂאוּ נְהָרוֹת דָּכְיָם  The psalmist first declared the sovereignty of Yahweh in verse 1. Then he asserted the eternality of Yahweh in verse 2. Here in verse 3 he will prove the utter omnipotence of Yahweh. The first colon in verse 3 is נָשְׂאוּ נְהָרוֹת יְהוָה   “The tAr’hn'>have lifted up against Yahweh.” “The rivers have נָשְׂאוּ " is a Qal perfect third masculine plural from afn' ." The middle colon in verse 3 is נָשְׂאוּ נְהָרוֹת קוֹלָם." It is identical to the first colon except for the change in the final word. Here, instead of the vocative יְהוָה the psalmist uses the accusative קוֹלָם. obviously; the noun lAq refers to the great sound of the rivers lifting up. Dahood translates קוֹלָם as “thunderous roar.”[19]

            The scene here the rising up of the roaring floods is borrowed from the mythological idea of the combat of the god against the primeval times, as It had been handed down in the Babylonian myth of the victory of the god Marduk over the primeval flood Tiamat, which was celebrated at the new year festival; in form of YHWH’s victory this still finds echoes in the Old Testament. The OT poet speaks of that battle of YHWH only in allusions which are considerably softened down, thus deliberately avoiding the impression that the myth still retained its original significance for him.[20] He sets the primeval rebellion of the floods over against their rebellion at the end of time; the beginning and the ends are drawn together so that they represent a threat to the world concentrated at that very moment when the sacral proceedings are taking place. The verse, does not sound a note of fear, ensuing from that threat, but rather rings with joy at the roaring of the seas; for behind them towers the mighty God, whose power gloriously proves itself in the taming of the raging elements.

V4 is, however, a complicated verse to construe because of its structure. This verse is a tricolon as is most of this psalm (except for v. 2). The following arrangement displays this structure and shows the balance and symmetry of a 3+3+3 pattern: מִקֹּלוֹת מַיִם רַבִּים אַדִּירִים מִשְׁבְּרֵי־יָם אַדִּיר בַּמָּרוֹם יְהוָה The phrase מִקֹּלוֹת מַיִם רַבִּים  begins the tricolon in verse 4. מִקֹּלוֹת  is fronted with the preposition ‘min’ which appears to carry a comparison nuance in this context: “More than the sounds of many waters.” Dahood takes, however, a loose translation when he renders this phrase: “Stronger than thundering waters.” Part of his reasoning rests on parsing rabbim parses as a plural adjective referring to God, and, since the syllable count of this verse is 7:7:7, “there is sufficient reason,” states Dahood, “for employing the plural of majesty in this context.”156 It is ironic that the plural from the noun lAq is used to portray the loud “sound” (lit. “voices”) of the many waters, yet “the utmost of their power is to him but a sound and he can readily master it, therefore Yahweh calls it a noise by way of contempt!” Even the strongest voices, the greatest of sounds, the most tumultuous of powers or armies cannot match the supreme power of God. One interesting fact is that even though some are confident of the influence of the Ugaritic texts on this psalm because of its theme and style, the OT phrase ~yBiªr: ~yIm:Ü does not occur in the Ugaritic texts as a designation for Yam at all.

Given the Masoretic accents of verse 4 and the poetic structure of the psalm (largely composed of tricola), it is best to leave it as the MT stands as three cola escalating in meaning and imagery until the final colon exclaims with all certainty: “Mighty on high is Yahweh!” The word order must not be ignored, here. Similar to the very first phrase of the psalm יְהוָה, מָלָךְ here the reader finds אַדִּיר בַּמָּרוֹם יְהוָה . If one concluded that verse 1 was an emphatic acclamation that Yahweh and no one else! reigns, then here it could have that same inference: “Mighty on high is Yahweh and no one (or nothing) else!

V5 some commentators have seen a great disconnect between verse 5 and the rest of Psalm 93. For instance, Tate believes that “verse 5 is an add-on.”180 Furthermore, because of verse 5, some believe that Psalm 93 cannot be composed from an “early date.” Kselman also sees the sharp change in tone and, hence, concludes that it is a “somewhat banal and flat statement, out of harmony with the artistry and drama of the rest of the poem.”[21] But in actuality and when observed more carefully, it fits perfectly in the context of this psalm as well as in the greater context of the kingship psalms. Even though the transition from verse 4 to verse 5 may appear abrupt, the connection consists of God’s majesty seen in His dominion over the world of nature (vv. 1–4). But now, Yahweh’s self-revelation is manifested in His own Word (v. 5).

Verse 5 nicely divides into three parts on the basis of the familiar tricolon structure observed throughout the psalm.עֵדֹתֶיךָ נֶאֶמְנוּ מְאֹד לְבֵיתְךָ נַאֲוָה־קֹדֶשׁ יְהוָה לְאֹרֶךְ יָמִים The first phrase affirms the sufficiency and infallibility of the Word of God,  עֵדֹתֶיךָ נֶאֶמְנוּ מְאֹד  The fact that the psalmist brings the concept of the Word of God to bear at this point in the psalm does not suggest a disconnect. In fact, the whole of Psalm 93 recalls the rest of the Psalter and how the biblical testimony as a whole portrays the sovereignty of Yahweh God. Human suggests that verse 5 has a “hymnic character” to it. The psalmist here deliberately commends the absolute trustworthiness of the law of God. There are two main reasons to preserve verse 5 (and, hence, the MT) without emendation.

First, the shift from the celestial scene to the earthly one is not uncommon in the Psalter. Psalm 24 is one that speaks of human subjects (vv. 4–6) who laud God as Creator (vv. 1–2) in His “holy” place (v. 3b). Psalm 98 describes human subjects praising Yahweh (vv. 4–6) alongside the sea and its floods that praise Him (vv. 7–8). Finally, in Psalm 96, one finds human beings (vv. 7–9, 11b), the seas, and floods joining with the “gods” themselves praising God (vv. 4–5)! Second, the concern with divine decrees and the earthly temple priesthood reflected in the traditional rendering of verse 5 occurs elsewhere in the royal psalms (Ps 95–100). In Psalm 99, the psalmist speaks of Yahweh as King (vv. 1–5), setting the stage for his testimonies and statutes (v. 7).[22]

Psalm 97 is similar in that the reference to God’s judgments (v. 8c) appears in a context extolling God’s celestial kingship (vv. 1–5, 9). Scholars recognize that in Hebrew poetry, word order is more fluid than in narrative which is most frequently verb-subject-object word-order. But here the verse fronts ^yt,’d[e( to draw the reader’s attention to this new—yet still connected—theme to bring the psalm to a close, namely, the Word of God. The noun עֵדֹתֶיךָ  occurs 194 times in the OT and always in the plural when referring to Yahweh’s tWd[ Twenty-nine of these occurrences occur in the psalter. Only two occurrences of tWd[ appear in the royal psalms (93:5 and 99:7). Oftentimes, when the modern interpreter sees this “testimony,” one is inclined to think of something that happened in the past and there is now “testimony” or “evidence” to prove that fact.

Another misconception is Kselman’s take that tWd[ ought to be rendered as a “covenant” (cf. Num 9:15; 17:22). Psalm 93 concludes with the reality which has been affirmed throughout the whole psalm, namely, that Yahweh always has been, is presently, and always will be the King. The final phrase is יְהוָה לְאֹרֶךְ יָמִים  and it expresses the temporal reference of Yahweh’s Kingship. “This temporal description puts an exclamation mark behind the realization that Yahweh’s kingship is durable and can be experienced as reality in history.”

Application

            The interpretation of this short, five verse psalm is also hampered by the debate over the place of the ancient near eastern mythological background that may or may not dominate the central verses. Some see this imagery as an indication that Israel has transformed an ancient Canaanite myth in which Baal becomes king following his defeat of Yam, the rebellious sea-god. Others deny such a connection and explain the psalm in terms of God's creative activity, as in Genesis one, with regard to the natural oceans. If such Canaanite mythology actually lies behind this psalm, the translation "Yahweh has become king" would seem to make the most sense, at least here, where the mythological imagery may be present.

A minor indication of liturgical usage may be seen in the unusual shift in address displayed in the psalm. God is addressed directly in verses 2, 3, and 5, but is spoken about in verses 1 and 4. One chuckles at the thought of old school pastoral presence in the days when altars were fastened to the East wall of the sanctuary and the minister was required to face the altar when representing the people, but turning to face the people when representing God. Such liturgical representation would require four turns in the space of five verses. In the psalm, however, such changes in addressee suggest a distribution of speaking roles among the liturgical officiants.

The interpretation of Psalm 93, apart from the vexing problems of setting and context above, is straightforward. Declarations of the eternal nature of Yahweh's reign ("from everlasting" verse 2; "forevermore," literally "for length of days" verse 5), as well as its stability ("established" verse 1 and "never be moved" verse 2 are the same word in Hebrew; "very sure" verse 5) frame two verses employing watery imagery, whether of a mythological or natural quality (3), to reassert the supreme majesty of Yahweh (4). Thus, Psalm 93 serves as a hymn that praises Yahweh's kingship.

That kingly power is illustrated in three ways: 1. Verses 1-2 announce the stability the world enjoys as a direct result of God's rule. 2. Verses 3-4 attest God's defeat of the chaos represented by the watery abyss. Their power is indicated through the device of "staircase" parallelism in which the scheme is ABC, ABD, ABE where A is the "flood," B is the verb "lift up," and C, D, and E move to a climax after the repeated initial subject and verb. Nevertheless, Yahweh is "more majestic" than even this most powerful and unpredictably chaotic force. 3. Verse 5 subtly shifts from creation to governance. Yahweh's "decrees" match his reign in stability as they are "very sure."

 Bibliography

Briggs, Charles Augustus and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Psalms, 2 vols., ICC (repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960)

Dahood, Mitchell, S.J. Psalms II 51–100, (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc. 1968)

Danby, Herbert The Mishnah:Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933],

Fisher, Loren R.  and F. Brent Knutson, “An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit,” (July 1969)

Goulder, Michael D. The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, (Sheffield: Press),

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005),

Howard David M.  Jr., “Psalm 94 among the Kingship-Of-Yhwh Psalms,” (Oct 1999)

Howard David M.  Jr., The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997)

Human, Dirk J. ed., “Psalm 93: Yahweh Robed In Majesty and Mightier Than the Great Waters,” in Psalms and Mythology, (New York: T&T Clark, 2007),

Kidner, Derek Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary on Books I and II of the Psalms, TOTC (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975),

Kraus, Hans-Joachim Psalms 60–150, CC, trans. by Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 1993), 

Kselman, John S. “Sinai and Zion in Psalm 93,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts, ed. by Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004),

Mowinckel, Sigmund The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 vols., trans. by D. R. Ap-Thomas (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962),

Westermann, Claus The Praise of God in the Psalms, trans. by Keith R. Crim (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1965),

---

[1] Dirk J. Human, ed., “Psalm 93: Yahweh Robed In Majesty and Mightier Than the Great Waters,”

in Psalms and Mythology, (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 154.

[2] Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, (Sheffield: Press), 137.

[3] Herbert Danby, The Mishnah:

Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes [Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1933], 589

[4] Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on

The Book of Psalms, 2 vols., ICC (repr., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960),

[5] Claus Westermann, The Praise of God in the Psalms, trans. by Keith R. Crim (Richmond,

VA: John Knox Press, 1965), 150

[6] David A. Howard Jr., “Psalm 94 among the Kingship-Of-Yhwh Psalms,” (Oct 1999): 667–85.

[7] David M. Howard Jr., The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997),171

[8] Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150, CC, trans. by Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1993), 232

[9] Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on The Book of Psalms, 2 vols., ICC (repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), 296–97

[10] Loren R. Fisher and F. Brent Knutson, “An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit,” (July 1969): 157–67.

[11] Loren R. Fisher and F. Brent Knutson, … 66

[12] Snaith, The Jewish New Year Festival, 195

[13] Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 447.

[14] Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 vols., trans. by D. R. Ap-Thomas (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 107;

[15] Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005),

[16] See Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary on Books I and II of the

Psalms, TOTC (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975), 337.

[17] Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 447.

[18] Dahood, Psalms 51–100, 341.

[19] Dahood, Psalms 51–100, 341.

[20] Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150, CC, trans. by Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1993), 232

[21] John S. Kselman, “Sinai and Zion in Psalm 93,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts, ed. by Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004),69.

[22] Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 447.